This
matter is before the Court on an independent review of the
record. This maritime tort action arises from injuries
allegedly sustained by Plaintiff Robert Ballard when he fell
as he was walking to his seat at the ice show on the
Defendant's ship. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 7.) In the
complaint, Ballard does not separately title or label his
counts but seems to assert one count for negligence under the
following theories of liability:

The Defendant failed to adequately illuminate the seating
areas at the ice-skating show, making it a tripping hazard;
the Defendant failed to assign an adequate number of staff to
assist passengers in finding their seats at the ice show; a
section of stairs in the seating area at the ice show had
improper riser heights, or other improper dimensions, making
them hazardous; the Defendant gave the Plaintiff substandard
medical care after his accident; the Defendant breached its
duty in other ways to be determined during discovery.

(Id. at 2.)

“Courts
in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun
pleadings.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878
F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2018). They violate Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b), “waste
scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden the scope of
discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and
undermine the public's respect for the courts.”
Id. (quotations and alterations omitted). One type
of shotgun pleading is where a complaint fails to
“separate[] into a different count each cause of action
or claim for relief.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23, n.13 (11th
Cir. 2015). When presented with a shotgun pleading, a
district court “should strike the pleading and instruct
counsel to replead the case-if counsel could in good faith
make the representations required by Fed.R.Civ.P.
11(b).” Jacksonv. Bank of Am., N.A.,
898 F.3d 1348, 1357-58 (11th Cir. 2018) (“This is so
even when the other party does not move to strike the
pleading”).

The
Complaint is a shotgun pleading and is stricken accordingly.
In his complaint, Ballard lists at least three theories of
liability, failure to properly staff, negligent design, and
negligent medical care. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 16.) These are
separate causes of action that must be asserted independently
and with supporting factual allegations. See Garcia v.
Carnival Corp., 838 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1337, n.2 (S.D. Fla.
2012) (Moore, J.) (dismissing maritime negligence claim that
“epitomizes a form of ‘shotgun' pleading,
'” where the plaintiff alleged that Defendant owed
a duty of “reasonable care under the circumstances,
” and then “proceed[ed] to allege at least
twenty-one ways in which Defendant breached this
duty”); Brown v. Carnival Corp., 202 F.Supp.3d
1332, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (Ungaro, J.) (“Simply
alleging that Carnival owed Plaintiff a duty of
‘reasonable care' in a conclusory fashion, while
also pleading alleged breaches that purport to impose a
heightened duty upon Carnival, is not sufficient to state a
valid negligence claim under maritime law, ” and
holding that “the burden will remain on Plaintiff to
review her Complaint and ensure that each factual allegation
is supported by law and plausible facts, and is alleged in
good faith.”).

The
complaint also fails to include any factual allegations to
support Ballard's claims of negligence. The only
facts asserted are that on “December 31, 2018, the
Plaintiff was a fare-paying passenger aboard the Mariner
of the Seas” and he “f[e]ll and injure[d]
himself as he was walking to his seat at the ice show on the
lower deck.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 5, 7)
“Plaintiff has done little more than assert fact-free,
wholly conclusory, boilerplate allegations . . . Plaintiff
has failed to allege facts that are suggestive enough to
render each element of his claim for negligen[ce] [ ]
plausible.” Gharfeh v. Carnival Corp., 309
F.Supp.3d 1317, 1332-33 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (Goodman, Mag. J.).
In its current form, the complaint fails to give the
Defendant “adequate notice of the claims against them
and the grounds upon which each claim rests.”
Id. at 1322.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accordingly,
the Court strikes the Complaint,
(ECF No. 1), as a shotgun pleading. Ballard
may file an amended complaint by July 22,
2019, provided it complies with this order, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b), and the
Iqbal/Twombly standard. Specifically, Ballard shall
assert each theory of liability as a separate cause of
action. And any legal conclusions that form the basis for
those claims must be supported by good faith factual
allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b);
Gayou, 2012 WL 2049431 at *6 (&ldquo;Upon
re-pleading, however, [plaintiff] is reminded that any
alleged breaches, and the duties associated therewith, must
be consistent with federal maritime law and must be supported
by underlying factual allegations.&rdquo;). Ballard is
forewarned that failure to comply with this order may result
in the dismissal of this case with prejudice or other
appropriate sanctions. See Jackson, 898 F.3d at
1358-59 (instructing that “if the plaintiff fails ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.